Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Here is an article about a conviction that merits a closer look at how our military justice is treating sexual assault.

Using the most recent AF Times article and this article regarding the conviction, a reader who is familiar with military justice can discern that a woman who lived with Maj. Anderson accused him of abuse both of a physical and sexual nature, kidnapping, and threats of grievous bodily harm occurring across three states from 2009 through 2013. The Government called at least one witness who testified for the complaining witness.

At his trial, he chose to be tried by military judge alone and not to have a panel of officers determine his guilt and sentence, if convicted. The military judge convicted Anderson of six of the charged offenses and acquitted him of three offenses. All of the charges involve one woman, so there might have been issued regarding her credibility or issues the way the Government drafted those charges for which he was acquitted.

On December 14, 2015, the court-martial convened again to hear a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that a witness who testified for the complaining witness had been paid $10,000.00. The judge said that if the witness had been paid, then it "probably would not produce a substantially more favorable result,” had the evidence been presented at trial.

Having practiced military law for more than a decade and seeing the changes made to the UCMJ, I have serious doubts about this conviction. Maybe there is very strong evidence of this Officer's guilt that has not been reported. But, there is an equally strong possibility that other evidence of innocence has not been reported, either. From what has been reported, I find it difficult to believe that a reasonable factfinder would not have a reasonable doubt as to Maj. Anderson's guilt.

Reading between the lines and using my experience with Servicemembers who have been wrongly accused, I have many questions. Did these allegations manifest during a divorce or break up? Was evidence presented that the complaining witness has a borderline personality disorder? Has the complaining witness been married before? Has the complaining witness falsely accused anyone else of a crime? Did the Accused take the stand to testify where he would have been subjected to cross examination? Were these charges based solely on witness testimony, or was there evidence to corroborate the complaining witness's story such as pictures, audio, fresh medical evidence, or written evidence from the Accused?

Considering that Ft. Leavenworth has a policy against inmates speaking to the media, I really begin to wonder what they do not want the public to hear about the case from this man who could be wrongfully convicted.

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Four wrongly accused students have filed a lawsuit against William Paterson University for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and civil rights violations. According to the report, they were falsely accused after a women had consensual sex with them all, then later falsely reported they raped her.

Two of the wrongly accused students' attorney, Michael Epstein stated:

“Without conducting any investigation and based on the accuser’s report alone,” campus police arrested the men within the next few days and charged them with numerous offenses, including aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, conspiracy to commit sexual assault and criminal restraint.Campus police did not interview any other witnesses, did not obtain cell­phone records or surveillance video, and did not conduct a sexual assault examination — known as a rape kit — on the accuser, Epstein said.“The officers who did the reported investigation were untrained, did not know how to conduct a sexual assault investigation,” Epstein said Tuesday.Another attorney represents two other students who have filed a defamation case against the President of the University and the Accuser, but has stated that he intends to add the campus police as defendants to the lawsuit.

Victim advocates often say that victims don't report because they want to put the incident behind them. That might be true, although that leaves a rapist out there to rape again. But, the same holds true with victims of false allegations. Many times they just want to put the pieces of their lives back together after they are exonerated. However, in the military and our universities, a false allegation can have extremely negative ramifications on your career and education, respectively.

The only way the wrongly accused can fight back is to hold the false accuser and those who assist the false accuser accountable. In the military, this is difficult because Feres bars Servicemembers from suing the Government for injuries they receive incidental to their service. So, they are left with suing the accuser. But, finding an attorney to take on such a case where the false accuser most likely does not have deep pockets will be difficult because their is no gold at the end of the rainbow if you succeed in getting a verdict.

If they can find an attorney who will take the case, then there still are some pitfalls for Servicemembers who are falsely accused who want to hold their accuser accountable. They are fighting for their lives and their career in a court-martial that might take a year to resolve. Most states have a one-year statute of limitations for defamation actions, so the Servicemember who is exonerated will be barred from filing suit if he waits until after the court-martial. Of course, in the case of a vindictive false allegation, Servicemembers could sue the false accuser for tortious interference with employment, which has a longer statute of limitation.

But, kudos to these four students for fighting back. Their lawsuit will do little to prevent a false allegation because false allegations have been around since the beginning of time, but just maybe in the future, William Paterson University will do a little more than take an accuser at her word and arrest four innocent men.

Monday, December 21, 2015

A post by Washington Examiner Commentary Writer Ashe Schow highlights an anonymous mother's story about her falsely accused son who is still reeling from the false allegation even after the college cleared him.

In one part, the mother writes:

"I want to beg Senators [Claire] McCaskill and [Kirsten] Gillibrand to see the destruction of an innocent life, to feel his pain, to see his trauma, to know what it's like to pick up your child who is in a crumble on the campus lawn, to ask them why his life doesn't matter," she wrote, "but the silencing continues, and the war wages on."It is doubtful that her pleas would have any effect on Senator McCaskill who has written this in an opinion piece in Time Magazine about her efforts to reform the UCMJ:

"As a former sex crimes prosecutor who’s personally held the hands of victims and fought to put rapists behind bars, I’ve judged each policy ideawith one yardstick: Will it lead to better protections for victims and more prosecutions of predators?"Noticeably missing from her one and only yardstick is due process concerns for the accused. And, it isn't a stretch to imagine that she cares as little for falsely accused college students as she does for falsely accused Servicemembers who have no place on her yardstick.

"I believe Emma," Gillibrand said.The basis for my opinion that Senators McCaskill and Gillibrand care nothing for the due process rights of the falsely accused is hidden in their statements: a belief that victims never lie. Whether it is a conscious indifference for due process to get at the truth displayed by McCaskill's one yardstick doctrine, or Gillibrand's ignorant gullibility due to her lack of experience in prosecuting sexual assault crimes that makes Senator Gillibrand believe Emma, one might wonder whether they have ever met a complaining witness who they believed lied.

What would be really interesting to watch is how either would react if Austin Exposito, Theodore Gillibrand, or Henry Gillibrand were ever falsely accused of sexual assault.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Irwin Zalkin has written an article accusing 19 Harvard Law Professors of potentially derailing "the progress their university has made toward creating a fair and just process" towards sexual assault complainants. Mr. Zalkin is a lawyer who represents individuals who allege they have been wronged by universities under Title IX. His major issue appears to be the professors' statements about the case where Brandon Winston was investigated for sexual assault. We wrote about "The Hunting Ground" filmmakers' criticism of the professors' remarks about the movie here. It's fair to say that Zalkin probably agrees with Kirby Dick and Amy Zierning's assessment of the professors.

Interestingly, Mr. Zalkin discusses an OCR investigation into Harvard Law school for Title IX violations. Zalkin writes:

What the 19 professors don't disclose is that the process they were involved in was so flawed that Harvard Law was investigated by the Department of Education, which found the process biased in favor of the accused. As a result, Harvard Law completely changed its adjudicative process, and no longer allows the Harvard Law faculty to make the final decision. Under the new and fairer process, it is almost certain that the sanction would have been upheld.These are interesting points that Mr. Zalkin makes. First, it appears that he believes a disciplinary system at a University is flawed if it favors the accused. Certainly, any system which could result in the expulsion of a student with the second order effect of not being accepted into any other university, ought to favor the accused. Shouldn't it? Should not the burden of proof be on the governing body to determine that the accused committed the act for which he was accused before he endures expulsion? A process that is biased in that it favors the accused is a fair process, particularly when you are the accused.

The second flaw that Zalkin notes is that Harvard Law faculty made the final decision regarding expulsion. I'm not sure that lawyers having the final say on whether the accused is expelled is a bad thing when it comes to such a complex crime. Certainly, they have more training in the law, so allowing lawyers to have a final say seems like it would be welcomed. On the flip side, had a board made up of athletic coaches made a decision not to expel the student and the law professors overruled the decision, then I highly doubt that Mr. Zalkin would condemn the practice of lawyers having the final say. Moreover, reasonable individuals would probably understand that football coaches should not be making expulsion decisions for charges of sexual assault.

Likewise, Harvard should be commended for having a disciplinary system that is biased towards the accused and overseen by lawyers. Such a system or comments by law professors favoring such a system should place no chill on campus sexual assault victims coming forward. But, it strongly appears that Mr. Zalkin believes that such a system is not fair because it did not permit the sanctions against Brandon Winston to be upheld. Such a results directed process is a very dangerous proposition. I'm sure that had Mr. Zalkin been the victim of a false sexual assault allegation while in law school, then he would probably have a different opinion.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

While many stories about the wrongly accused and convicted on this blog involve a male victim of a false allegation, here is an article about a female who was wrongly accused and convicted of making a false statement and how some thorough detective work in another state led to her exoneration.

This is a fascinating article that highlights DNA evidence, counter-intuitive victim behavior, and police coercion resulting in a false confession. It also shows the mindset of a serial rapist and the importance for law enforcement to conduct a thorough investigation before jumping to conclusions.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Reggie Yager, a Major in the Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps, has written an extremely thorough article about false allegations and sexual assault prosecutions under the UCMJ. Before Senators McCaskill and Gillibrand focused on the sexual assault epidemic that plagued universities, they were highly entrenched in the invisible war of sexual violence plaguing the military. I would hope that a military law review would reach out to Major Yager and publish this article.

Major Yager begins his article with a discussion about the mob mentality when it comes to sexual assault and how statistics can be manipulated into creating a solution in search of a problem. He moves on to the consequences that occur when a wrongly accused individual is convicted and how prevalent false allegations are. Once he provides example after example of wrongful convictions based on false allegations, he addresses the studies on the rates of false allegations and shows how the reported false allegation rate of 2% to 10% is unreliable.

Major Yager finishes his article with recommendations on who to improve the UCMJ to protect the innocent wrongly accused. Congress has spent 10 years dismantling the protections provided to accused Servicemembers that helped to ensure that false accusations do not turn into wrongful convictions. This article is a great resource to show the evolution of sexual assault prosecutions in the military and how the lessons learned could be coming to a DA's office or College disciplinary board near you. This is a courageous undertaking and COTWA salutes Major Yager for sharing this informative article on the Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2697788.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

I implore you to watch Fox News on Sunday night. The "The Truth About Sex and College" aired Saturday night and it will be repeated again Sunday night at 8 pm, Eastern Time. It is a fair, balanced, and wholly satisfying look at the witch hunt that has settled on our college campuses. From the perspective of the wrongly accused, it is the best broadcast I've ever seen. It highlights the Occidental "sexual assault" case, Columbia's "mattress girl" Emma Sulkowicz, and Corey Mock.

The show features the wonderful Ashe Schow, who hits it out of the park describing what's really going on--great job, Ashe. It also features respected attorney Hans Bader, who is always astute. Host Martha Maccallum is exceptional.

I was chuckling as I watched. Our enlightened moral superiors in the sexual grievance industry want the public to think there is only one side to the story and that hostility to due process is perfectly appropriate when it comes college men accused of sexual assault. They are, of course, on the wrong side of history.

Leave it to Fox News, which is frequently unfairly maligned by the progressive media and the people who assume the mainstream media is objective, to present a show that is fair and balanced and that doesn't feel the need to demonize anyone.

The false report of rape in Bristol is interesting. A man allegedly paid a woman between $100 and $150 to falsely accused his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend of rape. Thankfully, the "victim" broke down and the cops figured it out before the intended victim of the false allegation was arrested. I wonder if these facts would be enough to convince the Indiana Daily Student that the recantation was not coerced by the cops, like they could not determine in this case. She has pleaded not guilty of the crime and is presumed innocent.

And, if the man who allegedly paid the woman to make a false allegation is found guilty, then he should be sentenced to confinement and required to carry around a ficus tree to replenish the oxygen he is wasting.

But, if you believe that publishing the name of presumptively innocent individuals accused of sexual assault is necessary to protect society or generate leads, then wouldn't society have an interest in ensuring that men stay away from her in order to avoid a false allegation? Or, perhaps she has previously falsely accused someone who is rotting away in jail who could benefit from knowing her identity.

While I understand the utility in publishing names of the presumptively innocent, there should be consistency.

****UPDATE***** Fox59 published the woman's name, but apparently no picture is available.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

In an Associated Press release entitled, "Senators demand military justice transparency," Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Barbara Boxer, and Mazie Hirono have called on Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to implement a PACER type system where the public can log on and search filed court-martial documents.

As an attorney who has represented Servicemembers falsely accused of rape, I highly support these Senators' efforts to make the UCMJ more transparent by requiring the DoD to implement a system similar to PACER in the Federal court system. Such measure could be used to show the real invisible war and expose some of the most outlandish trials that never should have seen the inside of a courtroom. Based on their past official actions, Senators McCaskill and Gillibrand have senior Officers so afraid of either (1) not being promoted if the Convening Authority dismisses a case, or (2) that control over the UCMJ will be wrested from the discretion of Commanders, that pretty much every case makes it to Court-martial at a pretty significant expense to taxpayers, unit morale, the mental health of the falsely accused, and the mental health of the complaining witness.

The public is probably unaware of some of the most ridiculous cases brought to Court-martial because Rules for Courts-martial do not require that a verbatim transcript be typed by the court reporter for full acquittals or convictions with small sentences. When implemented, this military PACER type system should have the audio, redacted for closed sessions of the Court-martial, readily retrievable in an accessible area, so that the general public can listen to the injustices that occur when a clearly innocent man is prosecuted for a crime he did not commit based on the political pressure exerted by these Senators. Right now, the only way an Accused can obtain the audio is through a FOIA request because no audio or verbatim transcript is made a part of the record of trial for acquittals.

Once the curtain is pulled back and the public can see what actually goes on in some of the cases, then perhaps Congress will reinstate the protections to the accused that were negated by this latest regime of victim advocates in the US Senate. For instance, every member of the Armed services was forced to watch "The Invisible War," a biased "documentary" that was filmed and directed by two victim advocates, Kirby Dick and Amy Zierning. One of the stars of this movie is female Marine Ariana Klay who has been by Senator Gillibrand's side at a few press conferences regarding military sexual assault. You can read the transcripts from the testimony of her accused rapist's Court-martial at his attorney's website here and decide for yourself whether she is credible.

You can read the transcript from "The Invisible War" here. Notice how the directors do not show Klay's discussions, if any, about the Court-martial in which she testified. Her description of her "assault" are mainly in the section where the film focuses on Commanders sweeping sexual assault under the carpet. Only in the end, is the viewer informed that the Marine she accused of rape was convicted of adultery and indecent language. They leave out that he was actually tried and acquitted of rape, which makes it appear like he was only charged for cheating and cursing.

Had a military PACER type system been in place at the time Servicemembers were forced to watch "The Invisible War," then the press could have logged into the Court-martial docket system and viewed transcripts, heard audio, or read documents filed by defense and government attorneys to see for themselves just how disingenuous this film was since Klay's allegations did make it to a Court-martial where her alleged rapist was tried and acquitted of rape.

It's no surprise that "The Hunting Ground" has strived to manufacture a college rape crisis; it's directors previously maligned the military in the same fashion. Hopefully, more transparency in the military justice system will help reduce the number of Servicemembers who are wrongly accused. Perhaps, they should also require universities to post disciplinary hearings online, as well, to ensure transparency in our colleges and universities.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Counter-Intuitive Victim Behavior is a pseudoscience that experts use to explain away behaviors exhibited by complaining witnesses that defy logic. For example, in the Court-martial United States v. Soto, the trial counsel used an expert in Vietnamese culture to explain why a woman of Vietnamese descent would fly from California to Texas two times to visit a man who she stated raped her. She only made this complaint after she found out that this player was seeing other women, which should not have angered her too much considering she was cheating on a boyfriend of her own. He was convicted of raping her and sentenced to four years in prison. Thankfully, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction.

In fact, Special Victim Prosecutors use taxpayer's funds at Courts-martial to employ Forensic Psychologists to convince military panels, somewhat the equivalent to civilian juries, that a late reporting after a motive to fabricate manifests is perfectly normal. Or, that it is perfectly normal for a woman who says she has been brutally raped by a Servicemember to stay in the Servicemember's barracks room, take a shower, and false asleep in his bed, instead of getting into her car and driving home or reporting to the Military Police. Dr. Veronique Valliere is one such witness who has testified in approximately 50 Courts-martial at $2,000.00 per day for trial.

Apparently, the legislators in Scotland want to pass a law requiring judges to tell jurors "there may be good reasons" why rape victims delay going to police and that it "may not necessarily indicate that an allegation is false" if there was no physical force from the accused or resistance from the accuser. I guess they also want jurors to disregard their common sense with how things work in the world, too, because isn't sex consensual when there is no physical force from the accused or resistance from the accuser?

Monday, December 7, 2015

Community of the Wrongly Accused was mentioned in an editorial for the Indiana Daily Student, which appears to be a student-run newspaper that has been published for the community of Indiana University in Bloomington.

The editorial is based on an incident where a woman reported that a man who she had never met knocked on her door, forced his way into her apartment at gunpoint, sexually assaulted her, then fled the apartment. She provided a description of the man to a police sketch artist. This composite was provided to the media who released the sketch of the man to generate leads.

A few days later, a man notified police that he believed he was the man who was wanted for sexual assault. He stated that he "knew the woman and had been with her the night of the reported event, having been invited by her to the residence. He said there had been a dispute about money and was able to provide evidence of text messages before and after his visit that substantiated his claim."When police confronted her in a follow-up interview, she admitted that her original story was "inaccurate." She admitted that she knew the man and that he did not force his way into her apartment. She gave three different accounts as to what happened, and she was quite evasive about the monetary dispute they had.So, the Indiana Daily Student published an article to discuss the danger of false accusations where they state that the most obvious victim is the falsely accused. The Editorial Board throws in the assertion that while only two percent of rapists spend any time in jail, a false accusation has profound and real consequences to the falsely accused. The article proceeds to discuss the adverse consequences to rape survivors who receive a real slap in the face from those who make false accusations.Most perplexing, the Editorial Board makes a giant leap and extends the adverse consequences of false accusations to women who have not been sexually assaulted:"Many so-called “men’s rights advocates” insist that the phenomenon of false accusations is much more prevalent than is commonly believed. Blogs like “Community of the Wrongly Accused,” suggest that rape is a “handy excuse” women can use to escape the consequences of their illicit sexual encounters. Each and every actual case of false allegations of rape plays into this dangerous narrative of women as vindictive liars hell-bent on destroying men’s lives."Make no mistake in this assertion: there are people, both men and women, who are vindictive liars hell-bent on destroying other people's lives by falsely accusing them of crimes. The purpose of this blog is to emphasize the responsibility of (1) law enforcement to conduct a thorough investigation to search for inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, (2) Prosecutors to thoroughly analyze the evidence to ensure that innocent people are not tried for crimes they did not commit, (3) Jurors to require Prosecutors to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before voting to convict, and (4) Judges to ensure that all accused receive a fair trial and that the falsely accused are not wrongly convicted. The fact that the majority of cases followed by this blog involve false accusations made by females against males evidences how men suffer when they are falsely accused of sexual assault crimes. While I have not read any studies comparing the ratio of wrongly accused or convicted males to wrongly accused or convicted females, I would imagine that the quantity of the former far exceeds the latter. A two minute search on Google yields these links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. But, even where their paper previously reported that a false accusation was made, the Editorial Board still cannot bring themselves to admit this Bloomington woman's report was false in their editorial criticizing false allegations:

"Keeping in mind it is not at all uncommon for rape victims to be pressured into recanting allegations of sexual assault that actually did occur, we do not want to claim to know what really happened. We don’t know if a rape took place or not. But we think it is important to begin to have a conversation about false rape accusations and how they hurt literally everyone."

Alyson Malinger appeared to have known last Friday that the report was false when she published the story entitled "Sexual assault reported found to be false." The Bloomington Police apparently think the allegation was false. But, when the Editorial Board throws in that only two percent of rapists go to jail, police pressure victims into making false recantations, and that they don't know if this particular report of rape was false or not in their article criticizing false allegations, then it is up to "so-called [wrongly accused] advocates" to focus the narrative on how the wrongly accused continue to have a cloud of doubt over them even when they are cleared by law enforcement.

"A call to test all the kits is counterintuitive to trauma-informed, victim-centered care. Our goal is to empower victims, not revictimize them. Testing rape kits without a victim’s consent is not only disempowering, it is unethical. Emphasis on DNA testing gives false hope in cases where DNA will not prove sexual violence was committed. DNA will not convince a jury if the defendant claims there was consensual sexual activity.What, then, do we do? The Sexual Assault Response Team is working on the systems level to create a unified, county-wide protocol that serves to support and empower victims while creating a safer community for us all. And every one of us plays a role in ending sexual violence. If you’re not sure where to start, “Start by believing.” Stop blaming victims."

Some news reports and victim advocates have attempted to use a backlog of testing rape kits to show how law enforcement does not care about people who are sexual assault victims. Herman and Murphy are correct in their assertion that DNA analysis is not evidence of consent. So, when an accused makes a statement to the police, such as, "Sure we had sexual intercourse, but it was consensual," then penetration has been proven, unless it is a false confession.

DNA evidence from semen taken from a vaginal swab in the complaining witness's rape kit can prove two things: Sexual Activity and Identity of the person who left semen. So, testing the complaining witness's rape kit for DNA is usually superfluous in a consent case because the accused has admitted penetration and the identity of the accused is known.

However, in a case of mistaken identity, DNA evidence is vital to catching a rapist. It also has been vital in exonerating those who falsely confessed to rape. And, Herman and Murphy's statement that "[t]esting rape kits without a victim’s consent is not only disempowering, it is unethical" is simply wrong under those circumstances.

For instance, take a case where a female comes home from a bar and is texting a guy she met a week ago. He says he wants to come over, but she texts back, "I'm really drunk, my rooms a mess, and I got into it with some bitches tonight." He texts, "I can be over at your house in ten minutes. I'm going to leave unless you say No right now." When she doesn't respond, five minutes later he texts, "I was waiting for your response." She doesn't respond. He calls her, and when she does not answer, he goes to bed at his house in Phenix City, Alabama.

That night, somebody knocks on this female's door at her house in Columbus, Georgia, and she lets him in. He ties her up and rapes her. She makes a fresh complaint and identifies the man from Phenix City who was texting her as her rapist. Even though this individual has cell phone evidence that shows he is across the river in a different state, he denies going to her house or ever having sex with her, and his attorney attempts shows the cops his neighbor's video of his street between the time he was texting and the time she says she was being raped where no cars were entering or leaving from the neighborhood, he gets arrested.

He is held without bond and spends ten weeks in jail until semen from the rape kit excludes him as the donor. His attorney immediately gets a recognizance bond from a judge, he is released from jail, and the District Attorney gets the charges no billed in front of the grand jury. The victim continues to insist that the Phenix City man who the cops arrested raped her, even though she was really drunk the night she was tied up and raped and DNA evidence taken from the semen of the unknown person who raped her excluded him.

You would think that the cops would no longer pursue the Phenix City man as the suspect, right? And, you would think that cops would submit the unknown subject's DNA profile to the FBI to run it through their DNA database to see if it matches someone who was recently convicted of a felony, right? There is a rapist walking the streets of Columbus, Georgia who has a ten-week head start on the cops, and they should extend every effort to find the man who brutally raped this drunk girl, right?

Wrong. They do what Herman and Murphy suggest: They started by believing the victim, and they continue believing her even after irrefutable DNA evidence excludes him as the rapist. They don't want to further victimize the victim by telling her that she is mistaken, or question her further to see if there is anyone else who could have raped her. That would be victim blaming, so they keep their focus on this innocent man as a suspect.

So, what happens? Four months later on the 4th of July, the rape victim disappears in what appears to be a kidnapping based on the condition of her home. Her family and friends immediately blame the innocent man who was released from jail four months ago. They go to his house across the river and tell his neighbors that he is a rapist, that she is missing, and that he took her. But, this man is a Soldier with a rock solid alibi who was on 24 hour duty training Ranger Candidates on the 4th of July. He cooperates fully with the Columbus Police Department (CPD), so that if somebody did kidnap her and she was alive, then they could exclude him as a suspect and hopefully find her. Thankfully, the crew at the sex crimes division of CPD are not involved in this missing person investigation, so he gets cleared and he goes home.

The Alabama authorities report that they found evidence linking the mother's boyfriend to her murder and arrest him. He is awaiting trial on capital murder charges.

If the Columbus Police Department sex crimes detectives had been less concerned with "victimizing" the victim and had stopped believing her when DNA evidence excluded the man she said raped her, Renee Eldridge might still be alive and would be testifying at the rape trial of State v. Stacey Gray. Instead, the Chamber County District Attorney will argue that Stacey Gray, the man charged with her murder, should be put to death, so that the State of Alabama can provide her the justice that the State of Georgia could not.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

The title should read "Albany Man Gets 36 Months in Jail for Witness Tampering After Telling His Wife Not to Appear at Trial to Commit Perjury."

There is something strange going on in Albany, Oregon. Craig Lazon spent 9 months in pretrial confinement after his wife accused him of aggravated attempted murder, rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, and strangulation. However, the evidence obtained during the police investigation showed otherwise:

"Poole said Tiffany Lazon asserted she had been tied up for a week. But there were no ligature marks on her wrists or ankles.She alleged that Craig Lazon would not allow her to talk with her father on the phone, but records indicate a 20-minute call had been made between the two.When police went to the family home and broke down the door, fearing Lazon’s 13-year-old daughter was in danger, they found her napping and said nothing nefarious had occurred there.A computer flash drive contained photos and video of several incidents in which Tiffany Lazon had hurt herself, hitting herself with a screwdriver, hammer and even whipping herself with the buckle end of a leather belt.In all of the videos, Craig Lazon was shown trying to stop her. In fact, Poole said, the videos show that Tiffany Lazon had hit her husband several times and he never acted back in anger. Poole said that although Tiffany Lazon contended her husband hit her, she had no defensive wounds and there were no wounds on her buttocks, back or legs.“Our forensic specialist said her marks were symmetrical,” Poole said. He said that in cases of violent attacks, that does not happen.Further investigation found that Tiffany Lazon had previously tried to commit suicide and that her first husband had sought a restraining order against her because she had threatened to kill him.Although she alleges that she saw battle action while in the military, records indicate otherwise. And according to her VA medical records, she once tried to say that a bug bite was actually a gunshot wound.The Veterans Administration has found that Lazon has borderline personality disorder."Yet, the Judge sentenced Lazon to 36 months in jail for witness tampering because he had a fellow inmate contact her to dissuade her from showing up in Court. The presumptive sentence for the charge was between 15 and 18 months, yet, the DA argued for a 36 month sentence for his past history of violence against women. Lazon's attorney argued for 9 months confinement, which would be a downward adjustment, and seemingly reasonable, because he was attempting to prevent his wife from continuing with her lies in Court.While the article says nothing about what Mr. Lazon's criminal history shows, the fact remains that the video evidence proves that he was the abused spouse, that his wife had a personality disorder, that the physical evidence contradicted her story, that she was previously married to a man whom she also falsely accused of assault, and she made false claims to the VA, stating that a bug bite was actually a gunshot wound that she suffered in battle.

But, Mr. Lazon is the one who will not be home for Christmas. He's in jail because he tampered with a witness who likely would have gone before the Court and committed perjury. Why the Judge sentenced him to twice the high-end of the presumptive amount for that crime is a question that really should be investigated.

And, of course, people just naturally jumped to the conclusion that Lazon was guilty back in March when he was arrested, as evidenced in these Facebook posts: Need to cut his nuts off and let him bleed!!!!/He should just hang himself/Skin him!!!!!!/Bullet to the brain/.38 to the head, save us all some time and money/just send this "man" to isis. let them behead this "person" for free.

I wrote about men who marry women with personality disorders and who are abusive yesterday. This story shows that when you are in an abusive relationship, you must document the abuse through audio or video, particularly if your spouse has a borderline personality disorder. Can you imagine what would have happened to him if he did not record these acts? He spent 9 months in jail, even though the police apparently possessed this evidence.

Also, if your potential spouse has been divorced, contact the ex-spouse to see what their relationship was like. I have a hunch that there were pretty significant markers that could have given Mr. Lazon some insight into what he could expect when he married his wife. I would imagine that she complained about her previous abusive relationship. When you meet a woman who tells you about all the men who have abused her in the past, chances are good that when your relationship ends with her, she will say that you abused her, as well.

And borderlines are really good at seeming like they are the perfect mate. Whatever you like, they will say they like doing the same things. And, they are incredible in bed. Think of Glenn Close's character from "Fatal Attraction." But, when the other person makes a commitment through marriage, or moving in with the borderline, that's when they change and the chaotic behavior begins. And, when you've had enough and try to leave, a borderline will consider that abandonment and try to destroy you. It is so important to take the time to really know the person who you want to marry, at least twelve months, before you take the plunge.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Joseph Farrah has written an article regarding the college rape epidemic. In it, he discusses the victim advocate lobby's discouragement of simple measures to prevent being assaulted, mainly, abstaining from the excessive consumption of alcohol. Farrah touches on this subject, but it strongly appears that the more sinister motive behind victim advocates' negative comments towards those who attempt to prevent rape by giving common sense advice is that victim advocates want more victims in order to justify their existence.

The Violence Against Women Act has been used to inject billions of dollars into the victim advocacy industry since it was enacted in 1994. So, in order to justify this Government largesse, what do you think needs to exist? That's right. Victims.

So, how do you create more victims? One way is to redefine rape and sexual assault to the point where an unwanted look is "unwanted sexual contact," and the numbers rise meteorically. Another way is to eschew training people on measures that might prevent them from being a victim, and harshly criticize anyone from advising potential victims of these measures. This way you get bona fide victims who are victimized by sexual predators, and not two drunk people who are equally as culpable for engaging in sexual conduct with a drunk person. If these groups truly cared about victims, they could figure out a way to focus both on placing the blame on criminals while simultaneously supporting methods to prevent people from being victims.

I have noticed a trend in the Military where Servicemen are falsely accused by their spouse of rape and domestic violence. Typically from the cases I follow, Servicemen marry women they have known for less than three months, have been raised to not hit a woman and have not assaulted their spouse, are actually the ones being abused, and have the audacity to file for divorce to escape the abusive relationship. Many times, the abusive spouse has a personality disorder and files a false allegation with the military's Family Advocacy Program who then contacts Army or Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division (CID), Air Force Office of Special Investigations, (AFOSI), or Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS). False allegations are a form of abuse that rarely are punished when a spouse falsely accuses the other spouse.

One good tip is to surreptitiously record your spouse going into a rage if you live in a one party consent state for recording conversations. For instance, Georgia is a one party consent state where you can legally record conversations between you and your spouse without her consent or knowledge. However, this would be illegal in Florida, which is an all party consent state. Unfortunately, victims of male domestic violence are not given the same consideration as females and do not enjoy the same "start by believing" mantra by many victim advocate groups, so you need evidence. You also need an admission that you do not abuse your spouse from your spouse either physically or sexually before you file for divorce to protect yourself if he or she falsely accuses you after being served with divorce papers. Here is a good chart from a law firm outlining wiretapping laws.

If you are a Serviceman who is in an abusive relationship, whose spouse is crazy, and are planning on filing for divorce, then you should read the book "Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder." You need to know what you are getting yourself into, so you can plan for the chaos that is about to ensue. If a loved one is in this situation, then buy this book for them, so they will know what to do and expect. I have recommended this book to my clients, as it is informative, even if the false allegations do not manifest themselves.

(Disclaimer: None of the advice contained in this post creates an attorney client relationship with me, I cannot vouch for how current the wiretapping state law chart is, and I do not receive any royalties from the book I have recommended in this post.)

Below is a story about a law firm who fought for their falsely accused and wrongly convicted clients. Notice how the Government argued that the law firm put "too many lawyers on the case" and should only be paid half of what they are entitled. Certainly, any attorney who has fought for the falsely accused to prevent him or her from being the wrongly convicted would scoff at this assertion particularly in the Military, where the Government likely will have three prosecutors and numerous investigators working a case to obtain a wrongful conviction. Compared to the ease in which prosecutors have obtained convictions against innocent accused, it is an extraordinarily more difficult task to have the wrongly convicted exonerated and compensated for the 20 years they spent in prison. A heartly congratulations is in order to the attorneys at Neufeld, Scheck, & Brustin who fought hard for their clients and convinced the judge they earned every penny they billed.

"Attorneys at Neufeld Scheck & Brustin were entitled to the sum for their years of work representing John Restivo and Dennis Halstead in a hard-fought civil rights litigation, Eastern District Judge Joanna Seybert determined Monday.

Restivo and Halstead were convicted for the 1984 rape and murder of a teenage girl. Yet they and another man, John Kogut, were freed in 2003 when DNA from the victim's body did not match the three defendants.

Kogut had initially admitted to the crime but later said he was forced into a false confession. He was the only member of the trio to be retried; in 2005, he was acquitted at a bench trial.

In 2006, Restivo and Halstead filed one lawsuit and Kogut filed another. They were later joined.Among other claims, the suits contended evidence fabrication, police suppression of exculpatory evidence and intentional mishandling of the investigation.

The civil case for the three men went to trial in 2012, lasting 31 days over an 11-week period. A jury found for the county.

In 2013, Seybert said Restivo and Halstead deserved another trial because of the admission of Kogut's confession and related defects with the jury charge that may have caused jurors to "improperly consider the Kogut confession in connection with Halstead and Restivo's malicious prosecution claim."

Kogut appealed Seybert's refusal to grant him another trial, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in May affirmed Seybert.

Meanwhile, at a 17-day retrial last year for the other two plaintiffs, jurors gave Restivo and Halstead each $18 million. The sums awarded to Restivo and Halstead equaled $1 million for every year spent in prison.

The verdict was against the county and the deceased lead detective. The county is appealing the verdict and the damages.

In the fee litigation, Neufeld Scheck & Brustin noted the length and complexity of the litigation. They sought $4.5 million in fees, contending they were entitled to the Southern District's prevailing hourly rates, not the Eastern District rates. The firm, represented in the fee litigation by Leon Friedman of Manhattan, also sought about $320,000 in costs and $97,000 for the cost of the fee petition.

Nassau County said a proper fee and cost award would be $2.1 million, arguing the firm should receive the Eastern District rate and not be compensated for time spent on claims that were either dismissed, withdrawn or abandoned.

Moreover, the county complained the firm put too many lawyers on the case, billed travel time as attorney time and spent excessive time on calls and meetings."

(Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with any of the attorneys at Neufeld, Scheck, & Brustin)

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Mike Adams is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and a champion of the First Amendment. When he was not promoted in retaliation for statements he made regarding matters of public concern, he sued UNC-W and won. The court ordered UNC-W to promote him and give him 7 years back pay.

He has recently written an article about Radical Feminists and CNN's skewering of Harvard Law student, Brandon Winston. Professor Adams questions the integrity of the statements made by professors about the Brandon Winston case in "The Hunting Ground" and nails it with this quote: "[I]deology supersedes the pursuit of truth." Professor Adams expresses his disgust about the injustice done to Mr. Winston in a case where the falsely accused has been cleared by the University and civilian law enforcement, yet, in light of the clear and convincing evidence of Mr. Winston's innocence, CNN still broadcast "The Hunting Ground," which has been touted as a "documentary" filmed by victim advocates.

Kudos to Professor Adams in calling out the media and his colleagues in academia.

I have been graciously permitted by the operator of this blog to continue with newsworthy stories regarding false allegations. I have been following the actions of Senators Claire McCaskill and Kristen Gillibrand, respectively, with regards to their efforts to fundamentally change the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so you might see an uptick of comments regarding military justice related false allegations. I have also followed the pressure these Senators and the current administration have placed on universities to slowly chip away at the little due process accused students are provided at disciplinary boards. Finally, I have kept abreast of the numerous convictions for false rape allegations, as well as the exonerations of those who have been wrongfully convicted of false allegations of rape. So, I will continue to provide links and comments on those three areas, as well as provide resources for those who might be falsely accused or have been falsely accused. I will use the moniker "Barney Greenwald" who was one of the best Judge Advocate characters in literature and on the big screen.

Monday, November 30, 2015

I've been blogging about the hostility to the rights of the presumptively innocent accused of sexual assault--especially college men--for a long time. When I started, there were essentially no other outlets doing this on a regular basis, and we received notes from wrongly accused young men telling us that our blog was influential in their decisions not to take their own lives. That didn't stop some of this blog's many detractors from calling for us to be brutally raped--you know, to teach us a lesson and all. Now, there are a lot of people writing about the issue, including some prominent law professors, so to the extent this blog was ever necessary (our detractors say it wasn't), it's less so now. Some health issues have caused me to rethink the time I devote to this endeavor, and this will be COTWA's last post, at least for awhile.

This is the way public policy is made. A committed and well-financed lobby almost always prevails over the will of the people on issues that are not among the general public's chief concerns. For example, a poll shows that over 90 percent of likely voters believe that law enforcement, not colleges and universities, should be responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of sexual assault on campus--the proposed Safe Campus Act would make that general consensus the law. The problem is that the only people who are very interested in this issue--a well-funded, loose coalition aptly called the sexual grievance industry--feels strongly that the Safe Campus Act should be defeated. The sexual grievance industry almost surely will get its way, as it always does.

The unvarnished truth is that the profiteers of the sexual grievance industry dominate the public discourse on the issue of college sexual assault and dictate public policy about it. These folks have no compunction about making up statistics to "prove" an imaginary college rape epidemic. The only people who bother doing "research" into the issue have a vested financial or professional interest in fomenting a college rape crisis. When one of their own happens to stray from the preferred narrative, he becomes a pariah--at least according to people whose own studies prove to be wholly invalid. The sexual grievance industry doesn't want to end the "epidemic." Its constituents just want to keep their jobs. And those of us who know they're wrong keep fighting the same battles, keep saying the same things, keep holding out hopes that always fade. We've not figured out a way to defeat an enemy supported by a massive lobby that's extremely well-funded by tax and tuition dollars.

The sexual grievance industry keeps taking away due process rights to solve the rape "epidemic" but--mirabile dictu!--none of the "solutions" ever work. When it becomes obvious that the "solutions" are wholly ineffective, the rights that were taken away are never restored--the sexual grievance industry just looks for new "solutions" that are always more onerous than the last ones. If we were really waging a war on rape, we'd fire every ineffective general who keeps coming up with cockamamie "solutions" that don't work. But since it's a made-up war against a made-up enemy, the solutions don't need to work and, in fact, can't work.

The woman likely to be our next president thinks every rape accuser deserves to be believed, which requires us to disbelieve the the men they accuse. A United States senator has no hesitation labeling a presumptively innocent man a "rapist" based on an accusation. Amanda Childress, Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth College, asked: "Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" Even the gender zealots know these attitudes are not "fair," but "that's how . . . it has to be." Keeping an open mind about a rape claim is "rape apology." Calling for due process in college rape proceedings is "misogyny,""rape culture" and "victim blaming."Citing evidence to refute the made-up rape epidemic is also "misogyny." The sexual grievance industry has everyone believing that it's proper to assume guilt in cases where the facts are not known based on other, wholly unrelated cases. The overarching assumption is that rape is rampant and that women don't lie about rape, and neither assumption is true. The one-in-five stat is wrong (see here and here), and false rape claims are more common than claims that can be definitively classified as rape. Feminist Brett Sokolow, the undisputed leader of the campus sexual grievance industry who has done more to shape colleges' sexual misconduct policies than anyone in America, last year wrote that he sees "case-after-case" where "sincere victims [sic] . . . believe something has happened to them" even though "overwhelming proof" shows it did not. Mr. Sokolow suggested mental health issues may play an important factor in these wrongful accusations. Researchers from the sexual grievance industry treat as valid every unchallenged assertion of sexual assault on college rape surveys, even though when the evidence as to specific claims is actually examined, more than half of such claims can't be classified as valid or invalid.

The lies have disastrous consequences. They foment rape hysteria, which leads otherwise decent people to think witch hunts are acceptable. In this climate, even people who acknowledge that some men are wrongly accused think its proper to sacrifice innocent men as collateral damage to fight the phony war on rape. A U.S. congressman said he believed it is better to punish the innocent than to allow the guilty to go free (he quickly retracted that statement). An overwhelming majority of college women think it's better that innocent young men be punished for offenses they didn't commit than to allow a guilty man to go free. Student editors "would rather see someone falsely accused than see someone avoid coming forward." Colleges are likened to ISIS--which beheads, crucifies, systematically rapes, and burns people alive--because of the made-up rape epidemic. Gender zealots wage the war on sexual assault using the memes of the hangman in the Old South--due process isn’t merely deemed to be unnecessary to the fair administration of justice on campus, due process is deemed to be a hindrance to the fair administration of justice. Down the rabbit hole we tumble.

Even one sexual assault in college is too many. Sexual assault is a thorny issue that should not be ignored even though it is not an epidemic. We need to educate our young people about consent (amazingly, almost half of all college women think a nod in agreement does not constitute consent) and about the "regret asymmetry" that separates the genders.

Sexual assault should not be dealt with by fomenting a public outcry based on hysteria and lies. Innocence Project guru Mark A Godsey has warned that "the risk of wrongful conviction is the highest when there’s public outcry. Most of the exonerations and wrongful convictions have occurred in rape cases." These are not easy issues, and they require a very delicate balance--it's the balance that is missing from the public discourse. Every civilized society must strive to eradicate heinous criminality by punishing offenders, but it also must insure that the innocent aren't punished with them. The latter concern typically is absent from the public discourse. We have attempted here, in some small way, to inject that concern into the public discourse. Now it's up to you carry the message.

In case you missed it, "A Voice for Male Students" has had a name change--it's now "Boys and Men in Education." See why here. This site provides an invaluable service, and we link to its lawsuits database in our sidebar.

A New York Magazine article agrees that Dr. David Lisak has been peddling “questionable research” that “leads people astray” by claiming that the vast majority of college rapes are committed by serial predators.

I'm all for debunking Dr. Lisak, but after concluding that colleges are not overrun with serial rapists, the New York Magazine article reaches a conclusion that is wholly unwarranted and that promises to do more harm to the community of the wrongly accused than anything Dr. Lisak ever dreamed up. It states the following: ". . . it appears that for whatever reason — and this is where further research is so crucial — many men in college are capable of committing rape in a 'limited' (for lack of a less terrible term) manner."

Sigh. Do you see where this is leading? (1) The writer of the New York Magazine article suggests that the population of college rapists is much wider than the one Lisak claimed, and (2) the writer also seems to assume that the made-up college rape epidemic is a reality. Now, instead of having a handful of rapists committing all those rapes (a la Dr. Lisak), rape is committed by many--a large number--of college men. You can be certain that the sexual grievance industry is already at work plotting its approach in a post-Lisak world--they now have license to demonize college "men" as a class (as if they didn't do that already) since, apparently, the rape gene is spread among a large number of them.

This foolishness plays directly into the hands of the radical feminist meme that rape is normalized. Jessica Valenti, for one, never bought the idea that rapists are "sociopaths"--they are "normal guys," she wrote, and "[r]ape is part of our culture; it's normalized to the point where men who are otherwise decent guys will rape and not even think that it's wrong."

Monday, November 23, 2015

“The Hunting Ground” is a shockingly biased exercise in extremist propaganda intent on further chipping away the rights of presumptively innocent college men. It is filled with purported first-hand, and very dramatic, accounts of sexual assaults—classic “he said-she said” claims—except the filmmakers didn’t bother to acknowledge even the possibility that there might be more than one side to any of the stories they presented. None of the women’s stories—none of them—were challenged with competing evidence that might cast even the slightest doubt on them. The overall effect is akin to a 1970s radical feminist rant that insists women must always be believed solely because they cried “rape.” Director Kirby Dick sets out to create the impression that colleges are complicit in the campus rape “epidemic” merely because they do not automatically believe accusers and expel the men accused.

That the film is the product of an extremist, indeed radical, feminist philosophy is evidenced by the cast of characters it features. Many of the talking heads presented are well-known to regular readers of this blog. Dr. David Lisak declares that the problem of sexual assault on campus is “enormous” and his grand thesis that campus rape is primarily the product of serial rapists is given center stage even though that theory has been thoroughly undermined. (Linda M. LeFauve has a magnificent new article examining Lisak's flawed research.) Prof. Caroline Heldman makes a few appearances. Readers will recall her comment about the spate of lawsuits filed by college men who claim their schools denied them due process in connection with sexual assault claims: "These lawsuits are an incredible display of entitlement, the same entitlement that drove them to rape." (A court in her state recently demonstrated the bias and folly in Heldman's assessment.) Kimberly Theidon pops up. Readers will recall that she was featured here for trivializing the victimization of the wrongly accused. Diane Rosenfeld pops up. I assume this is the same Harvard lecturer who objected to the snow penis constructed by Harvard's crew team. The public space, she said, "should be free from menacing reminders of women’s sexual vulnerability.” According to the Crimson: "She said the snow penis follows a long line of public phallic symbols, including the Washington Monument and missiles. 'Women do not need to be reminded of the power of the symbol of the male genitalia,' Rosenfeld said. 'My guess is that they are constantly reminded of it in daily messages.'” Caitlin Flanagan pops up. Readers will recall that when a 20-year-old Ohio University male student was physically beaten after engaging in a public sex act with a 20-year-old female student that was almost certainly not rape, Flanagan applauded the vigilante "justice" inflicted on him--he "got what was coming to him: By committing his act in public, he exposed himself to the swift judgment of men, and his ass-kicking probably won’t be the half of his problems." We also reported that she wants to shutter all frat houses: "They are built of the same Jeffersonian architecture as the rest of the campus. At once august and moldering, they seemed sinister, to stand for male power at its most malevolent and institutionally condoned." (No, I didn't make up that quote.) Alexandra Brodsky pops up. Readers will recall that she took issue with those who suggest campus kangaroo sex tribunals can't provide justice in "he said-she said" sex cases: ". . . for some . . . , this devotion to the criminal law response suggests a subtle misogyny that many focusing on this issue have internalized." Senator Kirsten Gillibrand pops up. Readers will recall that she invited mattress toting Columbia student Emma Sulkowicz (who also makes a cameo) to be her guest at the State of the Union and actually called the presumptively innocent man Sulkowicz accused a "rapist."

I probably missed some important characters--it was difficult to pay close attention. But with a cast of extremist "experts" like that, is there any question that this was not a fair and balanced approach to a thorny problem? One glaring omission from the "documentary": feminist Brett Sokolow, the undisputed leader of the campus sexual grievance industry who has done more to shape colleges' sexual misconduct policies than anyone in America. Sokolow last year wrote that he sees "case-after-case" where "sincere victims [sic] . . . believe something has happened to them" even though "overwhelming proof" shows it did not. Mr. Sokolow suggested mental health issues may play an important factor in these wrongful accusations. Sokolow is more prominent in the college rape movement than anyone featured--I suppose Sokolow was omitted because his view would not fit the preferred narrative.

A few quick observations: ●The film calls college sexual assault an “epidemic” and an “enormous” problem when it is neither. ●With a straight face, a professor says that college is not a safe place for women, which is the epitome of hysteria. ●The film cites statistics that treat every allegation of rape as a proven rape, ignoring the fact that when even reported claims are subjected to competing claims of innocence, it is impossible to tell what happened in the majority of cases. ●The film assumes that there are no more false rape claims than those claims definitively determined to be false—all the rest (including both definitively proven rape claims and the far more common uncertain claims which make up the majority of rape claims) are assumed to be actual rapes. ●College women are told they should be worried about “the people [code word for “men”] that you do know”—change the word “people” in that sentence to “Muslims” and watch this film’s fan base have a conniption. ●College administrators, the film tells us, are “overly concerned” about false reporting when, in fact, they are not at all concerned about it and are happy to find guilt even when there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the accusation. ●The infamous Koss report, which started the college rape-is-rampant hysteria, is cited with approval. ●The film also treats as sympathetic the vigilantes at Brown who branded presumptively innocent men rapists by scribbling their names on college bathroom walls, oblivious to the fact that such misconduct is animated by a chilling hostility to due process. ●The sad case of Elizabeth Seeberg was featured in a way that made viewers assume she was sexually assaulted. In fact, it is not clear whether a sexual battery played a role in Seeberg taking her own life. ●The film cited the fact that a lot of schools reported no sexual assaults in 2012--not as something to be applauded or as evidence that some schools are doing an effective job combating sexual violence, but rather to "prove" the made-up college rape epidemic. ●Jameis Winston's attorney threatened to sue CNN if it aired the film. Let's see if he follows up.

When the filmmakers finally got around to presenting the “other side” of the story, they trotted out a hapless young man who looks to be of college age and who asks rhetorically whether a man should be considered a rapist just because a woman said “no” and they had sex. The implication is that young men don’t understand “no.” (The filmmakers should have asked whether women understand what consent means—ironically, one of the studies used to support the “college rape is rampant” claim is the one where almost half of all college women think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent.)

Sexual assault on campus is a very complicated, indeed thorny, issue that should not be tackled by fomenting a public outcry as this film tries to do. Innocence Project guru Mark A Godsey has warned that "the risk of wrongful conviction is the highest when there’s public outcry. Most of the exonerations and wrongful convictions have occurred in rape cases." What an interesting film “The Hunting Ground” might have been if it had bothered to present both sides of the story--but that would not have generated the mindless, angry outcry the film is hoping for.